Endovascular treatment for basilar artery occlusion: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Independent randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have provided robust evidence for endovascular treatment (EVT) as the standard of care treatment for acute large vessel occlusions in the anterior circulation. We examined available studies specific to posterior cerebral circulation ischemic strokes to see if any conclusions can be drawn regarding EVT options. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search to identify studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of EVT versus standard medical treatment for patients with acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO). We extracted data for outcomes of interest and presented associations between the two groups with the use of risk ratios (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model to pool the effect estimates. RESULTS: We identified five studies (two RCTs, three observational cohorts) including a total of 1098 patients. Patients receiving EVT had a higher risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) compared to those receiving non-interventional medical management (RR 5.42, 95% CI 2.74-10.71). Nonsignificant trends towards modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores 0-2 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74-1.41), mRS scores 0-3 (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.64-1.47), overall functional improvement (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57-1.51), and all-cause mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78-1.35) at 3 months were seen. CONCLUSION: Although EVT increases the probability of sICH, the available data do not exclude the possibility of improved functional outcomes over standard therapy. As larger studies are challenged by the perceived lack of equipoise in this vulnerable patient population, results of ongoing RCTs are expected to provide substantial input for future meta-analyses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".